You are on page 1of 26

z3

ISSUE: 20190506- Re: The theft of our democracy, etc & the constitution-
Supplement 48-electoral terrorism-etc

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST my concern is the true meaning and application of the constitution.

* Gerrit, what do you consider to be electoral terrorism?


**#** INSPECTOR-RIKATI®, it is where as the Framers of the Constitution made clear one
is denied the constitutional freedoms/rights that one is entitled upon. For example:
Hansard 9-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
Convention)
QUOTE
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-I know that my right honorable friend, judging probably from the time I am
taking now, thinks that in such a case I would take a long time, if I were in the Senate. I admit that his
surmise is quite right in my case. I admit there are persons on whom this terrorism could not be
practised, or on whom, if practised, it would probably not be effective. But I am thinking of persons of
weaker minds and wills, and I say that, as far as this Constitution is concerned, it is absolutely
necessary to put some provision in this Bill which will strengthen the Senate and prevent it being
intimidated in the way indicated. We have been frittering away the first principles of the Federal
Constitution long enough.
END QUOTE

I came to Australia from The Netherlands unable to speak English and well I was interested in
the Dutch Grondwet (constitution) and so decided to check out the Commonwealth of Australia
Constitution Act 1900 (UK). And when you do not know the English language then you have to
check and double check the words to their meanings. It is because of this that I gained in that
regard a much better understanding about the constitution then most people do otherwise.

When I was an INDEPENDENT candidate (Jagajaga - in the 2001 federal election I held it was
utter and sheer nonsense for me to vote and allocate preferences to the very people I stood
against. I relied upon this also to succeed in my appeals on 19 July 2006. Fancy you go for a job
interview and the future possible employer ask you to fill in a form who you view should be in
line of a job by allocating preferences. This in a way shows the absurdity of a candidate having
to vote and may have his vote given to a person he may totally oppose. This denies the
POLITICAL liberty the Framers of the Constitution embedded in the constitution!

Much is argued about Section 44 of the Constitution and I will address certain points below but
the legal principle of this section is to avoid/prevent some “foreign power” to have influence
upon the way the Federal Parliament deals with matters as well as Ministers.

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates


QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been made by the
Parliament of the United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but not true in effect, because the
provisions of this Constitution, the principles which it embodies, and the details of enactment by which
those principles are enforced, will all have been the work of Australians.
END QUOTE
p1 6-5-2019 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
And
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an
Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that Constitution; and,
therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people.
END QUOTE
.
And let us not ignore:

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates


QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-Suppose the sentry is asleep, or is in the swim with the other power?

Mr. GORDON.-There will be more than one sentry. In the case of a federal law, every member of a
state Parliament will be a sentry, and, every constituent of a state Parliament will be a sentry.
As regards a law passed by a state, every man in the Federal Parliament will be a sentry, and the whole
constituency behind the Federal Parliament will be a sentry.
END QUOTE

For this one MUST read the Hansard constitutional convention debate records in how the
language was applicable at the time of Federation and also how this was in the United Kingdom
as after tall it is a British constitution.

Where then the constitution is specifically set up to prevent any “foreign power” to \have access
and/or interfere unduly with our Parliament and Governance then we must consider what at the
time of federation was a “foreign power” and not twist and pervert the meaning of words to mean
something different to what they are actually standing for.
It must be clear that as set out below the Commonwealth of Australia is within constitutional
context a “POLITICAL UNION” and as the Framers of the Constitution made clear (see
quotation below) this cannot be changed. Hence the High Court of Australia cannot override the
legal principles embedded in the constitution merely because it desires to do so. Any such
judgments are NULL AND VOID!
Likewise the legal principle to prevent any “foreign power” to influence our Parliament/
Government means that any purported registration of the Commonwealth of Australia with the
District of Columbia in the USA is a violation of our constitutional principles.
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
QUOTE
44 Disqualification
Any person who:
(i) is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power,
or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a
foreign power; or
END QUOTE

It is very clear that where our federal government is a registered entity with the District of
Columbia then every Minister serving at the time is violating this Section 44 and hence ineligible
to be a Member of Parliament. While the Commonwealth can engage in treaties this only is to the
Government of the Day but no further:

Hansard2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates;


QUOTE Dr. QUICK.-
The Constitution empowers the Federal Parliament to deal with certain external affairs, among which
would probably be the right to negotiate for commercial treaties with foreign countries, in the same way as
Canada has negotiated for such treaties. These treaties could only confer rights and privileges upon the
citizens of the Commonwealth, because the Federal Government, in the exercise of its power, [start
page 1753] could only act for and on behalf of its citizens.
p2 6-5-2019 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
END QUOTE
.
Hansard 6-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. THYNNE:

I shall quote from Mr. Dicey's recent work, which is very clear in its language. He says:

One of the characteristics of a federation is that the law of the constitution must be either legally
immutable or else capable of being changed only by some authority above and beyond the ordinary
legislative bodies, whether federal or state legislatures, existing under the constitution.

END QUOTE

Therefore a treaty entered into cannot provide the Commonwealth of Australia with any
legislative powers it doesn’t already have within section 51 & 52 of the constitution.
Constitutionally the Commonwealth is not entitled to have its own Commonwealth Electoral
Roll as it must rely upon the State electoral rolls and allow only those who are of the age of adult
as declared by the Commonwealth to vote in federal elections. The Framers of the Constitution
debated this also! One obtains the right to vote from a State (Territories are deemed quasi States)
and the Commonwealth cannot provide franchise to any person merely because it desires to do
so. Yet, I am aware of a person born in Victoria having become a Dutch national which
demanded to renounce any previous nationality, and then years later this person gained so called
Australian Citizenship (meaning actually in constitutional term to be a British Subject.) while
still holding the Dutch nationality. This person somehow can vote in Australian elections. This is
the nonsense that goes ion where the commonwealth allow for this when in fact constitutionally
it has no legislative power to determine who shall or shall not have franchise, a part of when it
legislate as to a “race”.

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates


QUOTE
Mr. DEAKIN.- In this Constitution, although much is written much remains unwritten,
END QUOTE

Again, because I had to learn the English language I couldn’t assume anything and for this did
my research for decades to discover what the true meaning and application of the constitution
really stood for. The High Court of Australia denied the usage of the Hansard recorded for about
70 years and as result numerous past decisions were wrongly decided. What I have been doing is
to research the true intentions of the Framers of the constitution besides what the constitution
itself states and by this we can show the so called unwritten parts of the constitution by
highlighting their statements as I quote them.

And the word “race” is not what might be claimed to be relates to what is commonly referred to
as the colour of skin as it includes a group of people of a certain nationality regardless of their
skin colour. However I will not in this document set this out as I have done so considerably in
previous statements which are accessible from my blog at www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati.

I will give an example how most people in Australia seem to attribute the story “the fable of the
dog and the shadow” to Æsop. (Sixth century B.C.) Fables where in fact the Framers of the
Constitution in the previous century already referred to this fable. I will quote below the Framers
of the Constitution and then a limited internet search, etc.
THIS IS VERY RELEVANT to if you do want to be a Member of Parliament you need to
understand and comprehend the true meaning of words and not what politicians and judges
pretend to make out of it.

p3 6-5-2019 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.


INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
Moreover now that candidates are forced to answer some questionnaire about Section 44 of the
constitution then the fable of the “shadow” very much comes to the forefront.

Hansard 2-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates


QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-
The record of these debates may fairly be expected to be widely read, and the observations to which I
allude might otherwise lead to a certain amount of misconception.
END QUOTE

":.. The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its
makers" Gaudron J (Wakim, HCA27\99)

"... But … in the interpretation of the Constitution the connotation or connotations of its words should
remain constant. We are not to give words a meaning different from any meaning which they could have
borne in 1900. Law is to be accommodated to changing facts. It is not to be changed as language changes.
"
Windeyer J (Ex parte Professional Engineers' Association)

HANSARD 9-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates


QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-No, because the Constitution is not passed by the Parliament.
END QUOTE

Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates


QUOTE
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Now it is coming out. The Constitution is made for the people and the states on
terms that are just to both.
END QUOTE

Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates


QUOTE Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-
When we consider how vast the importance is that every word of the Constitution should be correct,
that every clause should fit into every other clause; when we consider the great amount of time, trouble,
and expense it would take to make any alteration, and that, if we have not made our intentions clear,
we shall undoubtedly have laid the foundation of lawsuits of a most extensive nature, which will harass
the people of United Australia and create dissatisfaction with our work, it must be evident that too
much care has not been exercised.
END QUOTE
.
Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-The honorable and learned member (Mr. Isaacs) is I think correct
in the history of this clause that he has given, and this is [start page 672] one of those instances which should
make us very careful of following too slavishly the provisions of the United States Constitution, or any other
Constitution. No doubt in putting together the draft of this Bill, those who were responsible for doing so used
the material they found in every Constitution before it, and probably they felt that they would be incurring a
great deal of responsibility in leaving out provisions which might be in the least degree applicable. But it is
for us to consider, looking at the history and reasons for these provisions in the Constitution of the United
States, whether they are in any way applicable; and I quite agree with my honorable and learned friend (Mr.
Carruthers) that we should be very careful of every word that we put in this Constitution, and that we should
have no word in it which we do not see some reason for. Because there can be no question that in time to
come, when this Constitution has to be interpreted, every word will be weighed and an interpretation given to
it; and by the use now of what I may describe as idle words which we have no use for, we may be giving a
direction to the Constitution which none of us now contemplate. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to see that
there is some reason for every clause and every word that goes into this Constitution.
END QUOTE
.
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. BARTON.

p4 6-5-2019 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.


INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
If we are going to give the Federal Parliament power to legislate as it pleases with regard to
Commonwealth citizenship, not having defined it, we may be enabling the Parliament to pass
legislation that would really defeat all the principles inserted elsewhere in the Constitution, and, in fact,
to play ducks and drakes with it. That is not what is meant by the term "Trust the Federal
Parliament."
END QUOTE

HANSARD 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates


QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-I did not say that. I say that our real status is as subjects, and that we are all alike
subjects of the British Crown.
END QUOTE

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates


QUOTE
Mr. SYMON ( South Australia ).-
In the preamble honorable members will find that what we desire to do is to unite in one indissoluble Federal
Commonwealth -that is the political Union-"under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Ireland , and under the Constitution hereby established." Honorable members will therefore see that the
application of the word Commonwealth is to the political Union which is sought to be established. It is not
intended there to have any relation whatever to the name of the country or nation which we are going to create
under that Union . The second part of the preamble goes on to say that it is expedient to make provision for
the admission of other colonies into the Commonwealth. That is, for admission into this political Union,
which is not a republic, which is not to be called a dominion, kingdom, or empire, but is to be a Union
by the name of "Commonwealth," and I do not propose to interfere with that in the slightest degree.
END QUOTE
.
This quotation makes clear that regardless what the High Court of Australia in Sue v Hill may
have claimed, the Commonwealth of Australia is no more but some “political Union” and it is
beyond the provision/capability of Section 128 of the constitution to alter this.
No amendment Constitution Act was to my knowledge aver enacted by the British Parliament to
amend this and the so called (purported) Australian Act 1986 (UK)/(Cth) cannot override or
amend the constitution by implication or otherwise.
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-
I think we might, on the attempt to found this great Commonwealth, just advance one step, not beyond
the substance of the legislation, but beyond the form of the legislation, of the different colonies, and say
that there shall be embedded in the Constitution the righteous principle that the Ministers of the
Crown and their officials shall be liable for any arbitrary act or wrong they may do, in the same way as
any private person would be.
END QUOTE
.
It must be clear that the so called “shadow Minister” is an illusion that doesn’t exist in
constitutional terms as this person has no department to be responsible for.
It is a con job upon the electorate and independent Members of Parliament who somehow can
have a leader of a major party taking over and deny them their rights.
The word “citizen” in Section 44 of the constitution had absolutely no meaning as to nationality
but means the place of abode where one resides regardless what nationality or nationalities a
person may possess.

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates


QUOTE

Mr. SYMON.-Very likely not. What I want to know is, if there is anybody who will come under the
operation of the law, so as to be a citizen of the Commonwealth, who would not also be entitled to be a
citizen of the state? There ought to be no opportunity for such discrimination as would allow a section of a
state to remain outside the pale of the Commonwealth, except with regard to legislation as to aliens. Dual
citizenship exists, but it is not dual citizenship of persons, it is dual citizenship in each person. There may
p5 6-5-2019 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
be two men-Jones and Smith-in one state, both of whom are citizens of the state, but one only is a
citizen of the Commonwealth. That would not be the dual citizenship meant. What is meant is a dual
citizenship in Mr. Trenwith and myself. That is to say, I am a citizen of the state and I am also a citizen
of the Commonwealth; that is the dual citizenship. That does not affect the operation of this clause at all.
But if we introduce this clause, it is open to the whole of the powerful criticism of Mr. O'Connor and those
who say that it is putting on the face of the Constitution an unnecessary provision, and one which we do not
expect will be exercised adversely or improperly, and, therefore, it is much better to be left out. Let us, in
dealing with this question, be as careful as we possibly, can that we do not qualify the citizenship of this
Commonwealth in any way or exclude anybody [start page 1764] from it, and let us do that with precision and
clearness. As a citizen of a state I claim the right to be a citizen of the Commonwealth. I do not want to
place in the hands of the Commonwealth Parliament, however much I may be prepared to trust it, the
right of depriving me of citizenship. I put this only as an argument, because no one would anticipate such a
thing, but the Commonwealth Parliament might say that nobody possessed of less than £1,000 a year should
be a citizen of the Federation. You are putting that power in the hands of Parliament.

Mr. HIGGINS.-Why not?

Mr. SYMON.-I would not put such a power in the hands of any Parliament. We must rest this
Constitution on a foundation that we understand, and we mean that every citizen of a state shall be a
citizen of the Commonwealth, and that the Commonwealth shall have no right to withdraw, qualify, or
restrict those rights of citizenship, except with regard to one particular set of people who are subject to
disabilities, as aliens, and so on.

END QUOTE

QUOTE Thomas Jefferson:


"The germ of destruction of our nation is in the power of the judiciary, an
irresponsible body - working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little
today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over
the field of jurisdiction, until all shall render powerless the checks of one
branch over the other and will become as venal and oppressive as the
government from which we separated.".
END QUOTE

I in the past have extensively written about numerous issues which can be located at
www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati and in fact defeated the Commonwealth of Australia (so the
AEC) in both appeals on 19 July 2006 County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 &
Q10897630 that compulsory voting is unconstitutional. I also challenged successfully in previous
proceedings in August 2005 the provision of AVERMENT (CEA1918) as well as by consent
was on 4 December 2002 granted orders of my Section 68 NOTICE OFCONSTITUTIONAL
MATTERS that for example CITIZENSHIP legislation by the Commonwealth of Australia is
unconstitutional and hence ULTRA VIRES and this to be heard and determined by the High
Court of Australia. The latter however refused to hear and determine the matter. This in violation
to Section 75(v) of the constitution and violating the court order of 4 December 2002, again by
consent! Hence, unless and until if ever at all the High court of Australia hears and determines
the constitutional issues I raised they all remain legally applicable and all legislative provisions
challenged by me are and remain to be ULTRA VIRES Ab Initio. This is a legal principle.
While I do vote at times in federal elections at times I do not such as in this coming election and
the Commonwealth of Australia cannot ever again take me to court about this because they lost
on 19 July 2006 on this issue.
In my view the AEC (Commonwealth Electoral Commission) therefore are committing
constitutional terrorism to force electors to vote under the thread of fines where it is well aware
I defeated it upon this issue on 19 July 2006!

I will now refer to the Framers of the Constitution about the reference of the dog and his shadow:
p6 6-5-2019 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
Hansard 7-2-1898 Constitution convention Debates
QUOTE
Sir JOHN FORREST.-The last part of it goes with the first part. If you give up the control of a river you
must make provision against interference with the tributaries of that river. I look upon the Murray as a federal
river, and the only river in Australia that can really be called a federal river, and I am willing that it should be
under federal control, and that if any of the colonies-New South Wales, South Australia, or Victoria-did
anything to interfere with its navigation, the High Court of the Federal Parliament should have the right to
interfere. I am altogether in favour of the proposal of the leader of the Convention, and I hope that it will be
accepted, because it is the only way out of the difficulty. We all remember the fable of the dog and the
shadow.
Mr. SYMON.-The right honorable member must not quote constitutional authorities.
END QUOTE

The Dog and the Shadow. Aesop. 1909-14. Fables. The Harvard ... https://www.bartleby.com/17/1/3.html
IT happened that a Dog had got a piece of meat and was carrying it home in his mouth to eat it in
peace. Now on his way home he had to cross a plank lying ...

https://www.bartleby.com/17/1/3.html
QUOTE
Æsop. (Sixth century B.C.) Fables.
The Harvard Classics. 1909–14.
The Dog and the Shadow
IT happened that a Dog had got a piece of meat and was carrying it home in his mouth to eat it in
peace. Now on his way home he had to cross a plank lying across a running brook. As he crossed,
he looked down and saw his own shadow reflected in the water beneath. Thinking it was another
dog with another piece of meat, he made up his mind to have that also. So he made a snap at the
shadow in the water, but as he opened his mouth the piece of meat fell out, dropped into the water
and was never seen more.
“BEWARE LEST YOU LOSE THE SUBSTANCE BY GRASPING AT THE SHADOW.”
END QUOTE

http://www.english-for-students.com/The-Dog-and-The-Shadow.html
QUOTE

The Dog and The Shadow


The Dog and The Shadow :
A big dog stole a piece of bone from a kitchen. It began to run very fast. It came to a stream. The stream was
bridged by a plank. As he walked across the plank, he saw a very strange sight.
The water in the stream was clear and quiet. It saw another dog with another bone in its mouth in the water.
“Ho!..." said the dog.
“What is this? Another dog with a piece of bone down in water? With a much bigger piece than mine! I will
take it from the dog."
But the dog did not realize that the dog in the water was its own reflection.
He opened its mouth to catch the piece of bone from the dog in the water.
Alas! Down fell his own dinner with a loud splash…The gentle waving movement of the water cleared. The
dog was staring up out of the water with empty jaws.
It was his shadow that he saw all the time and the shadow of his piece of bone too.
END QUOTE

https://first-english.org/reading_understanding/fables/05_fable_dog_shadow_exercise.htm
QUOTE
A Dog and his Shadow
A dog was crossing a little river and had some meat in its mouth. Then he saw his own
shadow in the river but thought it was another dog. This "dog" also had a piece of meat in

p7 6-5-2019 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.


INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
his mouth. As the dog was so greedy, he wanted this "second" piece of meat. When trying
to snatch it, he dropped his meat into the river and it sank. The dog could not retrieve it.
Moral:
Many people are selfish and want things that do not belong to them. It is only fair that they
should lose their own things.
Vocabulary:
to snatch - To grasp suddenly.
to retrieve - to get back
selfish - Concerned only with oneself.
Choose the correct answer.

END QUOTE

The Dog and his Shadow | Barney Wiki | FANDOM powered by Wikia
https://barney.fandom.com/wiki/The_Dog_and_his_Shadow
The Dog and his Shadow is a children's story/an Aesop's fable that only appeared in Trading Places. When a
dog sees another bone, he greedily tries to open ...
QUOTE
in:
Stories, Fables, 1998
The Dog and his Shadow
The Dog and his Shadow is a children's story/an Aesop's fable that only appeared in
Trading Places.
Synopsis

When a dog sees another bone, he greedily tries to open his mouth and grab it. He did not
realize that he was looking at his shadow carrying the same bone. Once he opened his
mouth, the bone he was carrying fell into the lake. The dog learned to appreciate what he
already had.

END QUOTE

https://michelinewalker.com/2014/09/10/la-fontaines-the-dog-that-dropped-the-substance-for-the-shadow/
QUOTE
A “Learned” Eastern Tradition
In other words, Æsop’s fables were probably transmitted to Western fabulists by Phædus and Babrius, but
there is an eastern tradition, a parallel. When La Fontaine wrote his second collection (recueil) of fables,
published in 1678, he had read G. Gaulmin’s Livre des lumières ou la conduite des roys (1644) (The Book of
Lights or the Conduct of Kings). This book contains Pilpay’s fables. (See Panchatantra, Wikipedia.)
END QUOTE

We have Bill Shorten claiming to be the leader of the Opposition to be Shadow Minister and not
to be in an Office of Profit. However if one check the Hansard records of the 1891, 1897 and
1898 constitutional convention then whatever usage of the word “shadow” it was not about a
“shadow Minister”.

HANSARD 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention


QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS:
Mr. Barton first of all recites Dicey to show what occurs under the unwritten Constitution of
England. But here we are framing a written Constitution. When once that Constitution is framed we
cannot get behind it.
p8 6-5-2019 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
END QUOTE

Hence, Parliament can make up whatever rules/legislation but in the end anyone who held a
position as some “shadow Minister” is in an office of profit. Hence, in my view Bill Shorten and
anyone else like him is in violation of Section 44 of the constitution. In my view his answer to
the questionnaire is misleading and deceptive.
Moreover when the Governor-General prorogues the parliament then effectively there are no
Members of the House of Representatives at all. Ministers (House of Representatives) within s64
can still operate as care taking Ministers but only for up to 3 months, by which time they must
have been re-elected and taken up a seat. Ministers in the Senate can remain Members of
Parliament regardless of when the election is held until their 6 year period has concluded.
However with a DOUBLE DISSOLUTION all cease to be MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT.

Hansard 2-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates


QUOTE

Clause 45. Each member of the senate and house of representatives shall receive an annual allowance for
his services, the amount of which shall be fixed by the parliament from time to time. Until other provision is
made in that behalf by the parliament the amount of such annual allowance shall be five hundred pounds.

Mr. WRIXON: I am not going to violate my own rule, and raise a point on the drafting here, except to
suggest to the hon. member in charge of the bill that the wording is not, I think, the best that could be
adopted. I think that to describe the payment mentioned in the clause as an allowance for services is a
misdescription. It is really an allowance for the reimbursement of expenses.

Mr. CLARK: We argued that out in committee!

Mr. WRIXON: I should prefer to see the wording which is used in some of the statutes of those colonies
which have adopted payment of members, namely, that it should be put as the reimbursement of expenses,
because otherwise you get into the public mind the idea that members of parliament are actually paid a
salary for their work, which they are not.

Mr. MARMION: I do not see why these words "for their services" should be included at all. Why not say
that each member of the senate, and of the house of representatives, shall receive an annual allowance? I
move as an amendment:

That the words "for his services," line 3, be omitted.

Mr. GILLIES: I beg to move:

That the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again to-morrow.

If hon. members will take the opportunity of looking at the laws in the several colonies, with reference to the
payment of members, they will find that a series of provisions ought to be inserted in the bill which are not
inserted. If they look at the New South Wales act, they will find provisions which take into consideration the
salaries that are paid to ministers, to officials, and so on. Some provision is required in order to guard against
officials being paid double. When a member of parliament becomes a minister of the [start page 654]
Crown, the amount he was previously paid as member of parliament lapses. There is no provision of that
kind in the clauses of this bill. It is not at present contemplated in this bill to make any other provision than
the bald provision already made. Surely it is not contemplated that in the event of a member of parliament
who was being paid £500 a year accepting office, he is to receive his salary as a minister of the Crown plus
his salary as a member of parliament. We have to consider these questions in a rational manner; and to settle
a matter of this kind without consideration is not likely to commend it to our own judgment, and certainly not
to the judgment of the public.

END QUOTE

p9 6-5-2019 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.


INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
What this means is to use again Bill Shorten as an example, after all he is supposed to be the
alternative Prime Minister and be a constitutional advisor.

HANSARD 4-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates


QUOTE Sir HENRY PARKES:

The resolutions conclude:

An executive, consisting of a governor-general, and such persons as may from time to time be
appointed as his advisers, such persons sitting in Parliament, and whose term of office shall depend
upon their possessing the confidence of the house of representatives expressed by the support of the
majority.

What is meant by that is simply to call into existence a ministry to conduct the affairs of the new nation as
similar as it can be to the ministry of England-a body of constitutional advisers who shall stand as nearly as
possible in the same relation to the representative of the Crown here [start page 27] a her Majesty's imperial
advisers stand is relation to the Crown directly. These, then, are the principles which my resolutions seek to
lay down as a foundation, as I have already stated, for the new super structure, my object being to invite other
gentlemen to work upon this foundation so as to best advance the ends we have in view.
END QUOTE

It shows that Bill Shorten might pretend to be a Shadow Minister but he is not a member of the
federal executive and not entitled to a salary not being a Member of the executive. Yet, as I
understand it he and numerous others have been rorting the system to claim to be shadow
Ministers when constitutionally this doesn’t exist as a position, and claiming both a salary and
allowance. Indeed, most former members of the House of Representatives continue to claim
allowances and use (albeit unconstitutionally) taxpayers monies to travel about for electioneering
this even so they no longer are since the parliament prorogued to be Members of the House of
Representatives.

Hansard 15-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates


QUOTE

Mr. O'CONNOR: There are only two limitations to the Subjects which may come under the head of
"manner of choosing." One is that the member is to be chosen by the people of the States as one
electorate. That cannot be altered. The other is that the qualification shall be as stated for the House of
Representatives, and one man shall have one vote. Those two things are expressly provided for, and
therefore the "manner" cannot touch them. They really put the very basis upon which the Senate is elected.

Mr. BARTON: That is the clause that calls the Senate into being.

Mr. O'CONNOR: But the manner of conducting elections must embrace everything else, and the manner
of choosing, surely, would include the method in which the votes are to be recorded. The method in which
votes are recorded must allow for representation of minorities, alternative votes, or any other system.

Mr. BARTON: It would be perfectly open, for instance, for every Parliament to provide for the Hare
system of election. The tenth - clause provides that the Parliament may, in the first instance, prescribe an
uniform manner applicable to every State, of choosing members for the Senate; but, subject, to such
provision, the Parliament of each State may decide how to choose members of that body. It reserves
such a power to the Parliaments of the States. But there is reserved to the Federal Parliament a power of
control, which might well be exercised, in the case of certain difficulties or misdeeds arising, to take the
matter into its hands.

Mr. SYMON: I quite agree with Mr. Barton, that if a power is not taken away from the State it
remains with it. But I doubt very much whether this provision in the first part of clause 10 would cover such
an alteration as is implied in the introduction of the Hare system of voting. The other name for it is
proportional representation, and I doubt whether the manner of choosing the members of the Senate would
cover the alteration, either for a Federal Parliament or a State Parliament. My idea is that section is a limita-
p10 6-5-2019 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
[start page 674] tion simply with regard to the manner of election, narrowly and technically understood.
There is implied, first the creation of a constituency, and second, the creation of the voters by means of the
qualification. which is also declared in the Constitution as that applicable to the more numerous Legislature
in the State. And it leaves untouched everything else. Therefore, if there were to be an alteration in the
way of introducing proportional representation, that power would remain with the States and be
exercised by them. There is nothing in this clause which enables the Parliament of the Federation to
alter the qualification of electors to the Senate unless by an alteration of the Constitution. Proportional
representation may or may not-I do not know whether it would or not-alter the principle of representation. If
it would, it would, therefore, be untouched by a provision merely dealing with the manner of choosing the
members of the Senate. I think, therefore, that the clause had better be left as it is, the result being, in my
view, that, whilst the Parliament of the Commonwealth may make aws which would dominate as to the
manner of choosing the members of the Senate, it would be for the States to deal with such a matter as is
involved in the Hare system of voting. It establishes a different system of representation under the name of
proportional representation.

END QUOTE

Again:
QUOTE
There is nothing in this clause which enables the Parliament of the Federation to alter the qualification
of electors to the Senate unless by an alteration of the Constitution.
END QUOTE

Hansard 3-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates


QUOTE
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-That is an alteration of substance which I will explain. I agree with the
object of the clause as proposed to be limited by the amendment which I am now proposing. That is to say, I
quite agree that any elector who, at the establishment of the Commonwealth or afterwards, has, under the
law in force in any state at the establishment of the Commonwealth, the right to vote at elections should not
be prevented by any law of the Commonwealth from exercising that right.
END QUOTE

It is not the Commonwealth that provides the right to vote in federal elections but the state and
the Commonwealth can only determine the age of when a person is deemed to be an adult for
franchise purposes. Therefore any legislation that were to deny the person top vote in a federal
election would be unconstitutional. While the Commonwealth claims to be enrolled by a certain
date reality is that it is the State that decides this. Again, any legislation contrary to this is
ULTRA VIRES.
As with the dog and its shadow being of the Æsop. (Sixth century B.C.) Fables most people simply
assume that what they are told is correct and like ZOMBIES follow this. The same with that they
are accepting citizenship as a nationality which the Commonwealth specifically was denied to
have any legislative power for.

Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates


QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-
Surely every person who has the suffrage-the right to vote within the Commonwealth-and who lives
within the Commonwealth, is a citizen of the Commonwealth, and entitled to all its privileges, including
the right to take part as the Commonwealth provides in the framing of the laws.
END QUOTE
.
When one seeks to participate in framing laws in the Parliament then one has to be elected and
this right is inherit to the provisions of the constitution as an elector to be a candidate and if
elected can become a Member of Parliament. Therefore the so called “deposit” and
“nominations” for independent candidates might be 100 or more I view is unconstitutional as it is
a law that deprives an elector of his rights.

Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates


QUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS (New South Wales).-
p11 6-5-2019 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
It does not require a majority of the states to insist that the constitution shall be obeyed, because a
majority of the states cannot by resolution infringe the constitution.
END QUOTE

Hence, even if the states were to agree all together it cannot amend the constitution as such as
only within the provisions of Section 128 can this be achieved.

Hansard 24-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates


QUOTE
Sir GEORGE TURNER: It would never do to allow in this Federal Parliament that those representatives
who are elected upon the most liberal franchise possible should be outvoted by those who would be elected
by a very limited franchise indeed. As this may fairly be regarded as the National House, representing the
people of the various States as a nation, we ought to have uniformity in the franchise. We must leave it to the
Federal Parliament to say what the franchise should be. At the same time, as some colonies have given the
right of voting to those who have not that right in other colonies, it would be unfair and inequitable to take
from any who have the right, and therefore whatever uniformity is determined upon we shall have to
allow the innovation that no person, man or woman, who has the right to vote shall be deprived of
exercising that right, even so far as the elections to the Federal Parliament are concerned. I would go
the length of saying that everyone who has the right in the various colonies, if they desire to exercise their
franchise, should have the opportunity of doing so.
END QUOTE
It is clear that “if they desire to exercise their franchise” underlines that compulsory voting violates
this embedded legal principle in the constitution.

Actually in 2001 when I was an INDEPENDENT candidate I refused to compulsory vote and
hence the AEC litigation against me, in which they were comprehensively defeated.
As such I proved I could be a candidate and yet deny being forced to vote!

WELSH v. UNITED STATES, 398 U.S. 333 (1970), 398 U.S. 333, WELSH v. UNITED STATES,
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, No. 76.,
Argued January 20, 1970, Decided June 15, 1970
QUOTE
1. The language of 6 (j) cannot be construed (as it was in United States v. Seeger, supra,
and as it is in the prevailing opinion) to exempt from military service all individuals who
in good faith oppose all war, it being clear from both the legislative history and textual
analysis of that provision that Congress used the words "by reason of religious training
and belief" to limit religion to its theistic sense and to confine it to formal, organized
worship or shared beliefs by a recognizable and cohesive group. Pp. 348-354.
2. The question of the constitutionality of 6 (j) cannot be avoided by a construction of that
provision that is contrary to its intended meaning. Pp. 354-356.
3. Section 6 (j) contravenes the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by exempting those
whose conscientious objection claims are founded on a theistic belief while not exempting those whose
claims are based on a secular belief. To comport with that clause an exemption must be "neutral"
and include those whose belief emanates from a purely moral, ethical, or philosophical source. Pp.
356-361.
4. In view of the broad discretion conferred by the Act's severability clause and the
longstanding policy of exempting religious conscientious objectors, the Court, rather than
nullifying the exemption entirely, should extend its coverage to those like petitioner who
have been unconstitutionally excluded from its coverage. Pp. 361-367.
END QUOTE

The same applies to the COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA!

QUOTE County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630


QUOTE 4-6-2006 CORRESPONDENCE FAXED 10.36 pm 4-6-2006
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
p12 6-5-2019 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions 4-6-2006
C/o Judy McGillivray, lawyer
Melbourne Office, 22nd Floor, 2000 Queen Street, Melbourne VIC 3000
GPO Box 21 A, Melbourne Vic 3001
Tel 03 9605 4333, Fax 03 9670 4295 ref; 02101199, etc
T01567737 & Q01897630
AND WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

Re; “religious objection” (Subsection 245(14) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918)
offend Section 116 if the Constitution if it excludes secular belief based objections.

Madam,
As you are aware I continue to refer to my religious objection albeit do wish to indicate
that while using the “religious objection” referred to in subsection 245(14) of the
Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 I do not consider that this subsection 14 limits an objection
only to an “theistic belief” based “religious objection” but in fact it also includes any secular
belief based “religious objection”, as it must be neutral to whatever a person uses as grounds for
an “objection”. This, as Section 116 of the Constitution prohibit the Commonwealth of
Australia to limit the scope of subsection 245(14) to only “theistic belief” based “religious
objections”. Therefore, any person having a purely moral, ethical, or philosophical source of
“religious objection” have a valid objection.
Neither do I accept that a person making an “religious objection” requires to state his/her
religion, and neither which part of his/her religion provides for a “religious objection” as the
mere claim itself is sufficient to constitute what is referred to in subsection 245(14) as being a
“religious objection”. Therefore, the wording “religious objection” is to be taken as “objection”
without the word “religion” having any special meaning in that regard.
If you do not accept this as such, then there is clearly another constitutional issue on foot!
I request you to respond as soon as possible and set out your position in this regard.

Awaiting your response, G. H. SCHOREL-HLAVKA


END QUOTE 4-6-2006 CORRESPONDENCE FAXED 10.36 pm 4-6-2006
END QUOTE County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630

Again I comprehensively defeated the AEC/Commonwealth of Australia in both appeals where


others previously and since then failed!

As the Framers of the Constitution made clear every elector of the more numerous House of the
State is entitled to be a candidate in a federal election and be elected into the Parliament. Section
44 of the constitution has specific exclusions but they only apply if the candidate having been
elected doesn’t get rid of any such limitations set out in Section 44 of the constitution. Therefore,
if a person is declared bankrupt, even after the election was held the person nevertheless can still
become a Member of Parliament (which he is not unless and until he takes up the seat elected
for) and prior to doing so, even the day before taking up the seat gets rid of the disability. As
such, if the person is declared bankrupt the day before on or after the election was held and then
petition the court to set aside the bankruptcy orders and does so successfully say the day prior to
taking up the seat in the parliament then he is entitled to be a member of Parliament as s44 did
not prevent him in that regard to do so. And any Office of Profit under the State is totally
irrelevant to any Commonwealth election. As the Framers of the Constitution made clear s44
(which previously was several clauses but combined in the end) was never intended to for
example have a Minister of the Crown of a State to stand as a candidate in a Federal election,
albeit if elected the Minister then has to decide to quit being a Minister of State or remain to be
so and not take up the seat elected for.
p13 6-5-2019 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
* Why on earth would a Minister for a State stand for a federal election and being elected then
decline to take up the seat?
**#** Suppose that Minister XYZ like to become a Minister in a federal government but
discover that the party he belongs to is in the majority in the federal election and so if he takes up
the seat elected for he might merely attain a back bench position and this may not be what he
desires and so rather stay to be a Minister with the State he is with.
* That make sense. Do the Framers of the constitution explored this?
**#** Indeed they did, and they made clear that the Office of Profit related to the
Commonwealth and had absolutely nothing to do with the State. That is why a person such as
Phil Cleary in Wills was in my view well entitled to be and remain a Member of (the federal)
Parliament.
* But didn’t the High Court of Australia decide otherwise?
**#** To be very honest I wonder how on earth those judges ever were able to obtain a law
degree. They are simply placing themselves above the constitution!

Hansard 11-3-1891 Constitution convention Debates


QUOTE Mr. GILLIES:

Surely we are not to be told that, because that is in contemplation, there is at the same time some
secret purpose or object of depriving the people of their right on any particular occasion when
possibly there may be some great difference of opinion on a great public question. There have been
no peoples in these colonies who have not enjoyed the most perfect freedom to express their opinions
in public, and through their representatives in parliament, on any public question of importance.
There has never been any occasion when such an opportunity has not been given to every man in this
country, and so free and liberal are our laws and public institutions that it has never been suggested
by any mortal upon this continent that that right should be in any way restricted. On the contrary,
we all feel proud of the freedom which every one in this country enjoys. It is a freedom not surpassed
in any state in the world, not even in the boasted republic of America.

END QUOTE

Notice about the Freedoms of America as we have d if not the same a greater rights embedded in
our constitution.
Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
Providing, as this Constitution does, for a free people to elect a free Parliament-giving that people
through their Parliament the power of the purse-laying at their mercy from day to day the existence
of any Ministry which dares by corruption, or drifts through ignorance into, the commission of any
act which is unfavorable to the people having this security, it must in its very essence be a free
Constitution. Whatever any one may say to the contrary that is secured in the very way in which the
freedom of the British Constitution is secured. It is secured by vesting in the people, through their
representatives, the power of the purse, and I venture [start page 2477] to say there is no other way of
securing absolute freedom to a people than that, unless you make a different kind of Executive than
that which we contemplate, and then overload your Constitution with legislative provisions to protect
the citizen from interference. Under this Constitution he is saved from every kind of interference.
Under this Constitution he has his voice not only in the, daily government of the country, but in the
daily determination of the question of whom is the Government to consist. There is the guarantee of
freedom in this Constitution. There is the guarantee which none of us have sought to remove, but
every one has sought to strengthen. How we or our work can be accused of not providing for the
popular liberty is something which I hope the critics will now venture to explain, and I think I have
made their work difficult for them. Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have
provided for an Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that

p14 6-5-2019 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.


INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
Constitution; and, therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people. We have provided for a
Judiciary, which will determine questions arising under this Constitution, and with all other
questions which should be dealt with by a Federal Judiciary and it will also be a High Court of
Appeal for all courts in the states that choose to resort to it. In doing these things, have we not provided,
first, that our Constitution shall be free: next, that its government shall be by the will of the people, which is
the just result of their freedom: thirdly, that the Constitution shall not, nor shall any of its provisions, be
twisted or perverted, inasmuch as a court appointed by their own Executive, but acting
independently, is to decide what is a perversion of its provisions? We can have every faith in the
constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of the Constitution. It is appointed not to be
above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under it; but it is appointed for the purpose of
saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the Government and the Parliament of
the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the Constitution, they are bound to serve.
What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of this kind, enable any Government or
any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions, then by slow degrees you may have that
Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the guarantees of freedom
which it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the court you are
creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a tribunal as will
preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext of constitutional
action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from usurping the sphere of the
Commonwealth. Having provided for all these things, I think this Convention has done well.
END QUOTE

What we have is that the High Court of Australia in my view has been manipulating its judicial
powers such as in Sue v Hill, Sykes v Cleary, etc, to have some outcome not at all justified
within the provisions of our constitution.
As the Framers of the Constitution made clear (subject of being elected) any elector entitled to
vote for the numerous houses of the State is entitled to become a Member of (federal) Parliament
if elected and not violate s44 of the constitution.

Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)


QUOTE
44 Disqualification
Any person who:
(i) is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is
a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign
power; or
(ii) is attainted of treason, or has been convicted and is under sentence, or subject to be
sentenced, for any offence punishable under the law of the Commonwealth or of a State by
imprisonment for one year or longer; or
(iii) is an undischarged bankrupt or insolvent; or
(iv) holds any office of profit under the Crown, or any pension payable during the pleasure of
the Crown out of any of the revenues of the Commonwealth; or
(v) has any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any agreement with the Public Service of the
Commonwealth otherwise than as a member and in common with the other members of an
incorporated company consisting of more than twenty-five persons;
shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of
Representatives.
But subsection (iv) does not apply to the office of any of the Queen’s Ministers of State for the
Commonwealth, or of any of the Queen’s Ministers for a State, or to the receipt of pay, half pay, or
a pension, by any person as an officer or member of the Queen’s navy or army, or to the receipt of
pay as an officer or member of the naval or military forces of the Commonwealth by any person
whose services are not wholly employed by the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE

Let say you are a builder and have a contract with the State Ministry of Housing to build houses.
Suddenly there is this federal election and the question would be can you repudiate your
obligations of the contract with the State Government merely to have a chance/opportunity to be
a candidate in a federal election? It would be a gross absurdity for you to do so not knowing if
p15 6-5-2019 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
you are going to get elected. If you are elected then with writs to be returned say in 100 days it
would give you time to transfer your interest to another builder. There was in my readings of the
Hansard records no intention by the Framers of the Constitution that a person having an Office of
Profit with a State could not then be a candidate in a federal election.
I happen to specifically check the AECEF060 of William Richard Shorten and in my view he
should be investigated by the Australian federal Police for making a false/misleading statement.
This as his answer to question 14:
14 Do you hold an office of profit under the Crown, other than an office expressly exempt from
section 44(iv) of the Australian Constitution?*
(Office of profit under the Crown include, for example, many public sector jobs in Australia.)

(His response recorded is having ticked: NO

Again quoting s44


QUOTE
But subsection (iv) does not apply to the office of any of the Queen’s Ministers of State for the
Commonwealth, or of any of the Queen’s Ministers for a State
END QUOTE

https://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/ministers-and-shadow-ministers.html
QUOTE
Fact sheets (Alphabetical order)
Fact Sheet – Ministers and Shadow Ministers [PDF 446kb, 2 pages]

Ministers

Federal ministers are members of the federal government who have been allocated an area of
responsibility for how Australia is run. This area of responsibility is known as a portfolio. The way in
which portfolios are created varies according to the government of the day. Some examples of
federal ministerial portfolios include health, environment, finance, education, defence, foreign
affairs, trade, community welfare, and immigration.

The Prime Minister and ministers are part of executive government. The executive is responsible
for developing government policy and putting government decisions into action. The Australian
Constitution gives the Queen executive power; in reality, it is the Prime Minister and ministers who
perform the work of the executive government.

How ministers are chosen

The Prime Minister chooses experienced and knowledgeable government members to be


ministers, and expects them to work together on behalf of the government.

There are usually about 20 ministers in the House of Representatives and about 10 in the Senate.

The most high-profile portfolios are given to the most experienced government members, and they
become part of the Cabinet. This is the main decision-making group within executive government
(see Cabinet).

p16 6-5-2019 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.


INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
Role
(Image not reproduced)

 View House of Representatives and Senate Frontbenchers in a lightbox style window

House of Representatives and Senate Frontbenchers

Most ministers are in charge of a government department or assist in the administration of a


department, such as the Department of Defence, Department of Health or Treasury. A government
department is an organisation of people employed in the Australian Public Service. They assist
ministers in developing government policy and implementing laws. Ministers work with their
department, community organisations and professional associations to prepare new laws and
change existing laws which need updating or improving. When a minister introduces a bill
(proposed law) into the Parliament, they must explain why the law is necessary and how it will solve
a particular problem. If the bill becomes a law, the minister and their department are responsible for
putting the law into action.

Ministerial responsibility

Ministers are accountable for the actions of their department; if something goes wrong they are
expected to take responsibility for it.

Ministers and the Public Service are answerable to the Parliament. Any member of parliament can
hold the government to account by examining the work of any minister and their department. All
ministers must be able to appear in Parliament each day during Question Time and respond to
questions about how the government is running Australia (see Question Time).

Ministers and top-level officials from government departments may be required to attend Senate
estimates hearings to explain the work of the department (see Senate Estimates).

Ministerial code of conduct

Each government sets its own ministerial code of conduct. This code is controlled by the executive,
not the Parliament. It is not a law or regulation and can be changed.

Shadow ministers

Shadow ministers are members of the opposition, chosen by the Leader of the Opposition.

Shadow ministers have the important responsibility of scrutinising (closely examining) the work of
the government and individual ministers. Each shadow minister concentrates on the work of a

p17 6-5-2019 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.


INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
particular minister and government department. Shadow ministers also put forward and explain
opposition policies.

Top-level shadow ministers form a Shadow Cabinet which meets regularly to develop these
policies.

If there is a change of government a shadow minister may become a minister. This is why it is
important for them to understand the work of the department they 'shadow' and consider how they
would run their portfolio.

Frontbencher

Ministers and shadow ministers are also referred to as frontbenchers, as they sit on the front row of
seats in the House of Representatives or the Senate.

PEO website
 Fact Sheet – Backbenchers and Frontbenchers
APH website
 House of Representatives Infosheet: The House, Government and Opposition

 Senate Brief: Ministers in the Senate

 Ministry and Shadow Ministry


END QUOTE

It is clear there are Ministers and those referred to as Shadow Ministers however that is a
creation of Parliament outside the provisions of the constitution and hence those so called
Shadow Ministers are in an Office of Profit!

Hansard 1-4-1891 Constitution convention Debates


QUOTE Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH:
If the Queen is to be part of the parliament, and to exercise authority in the commonwealth, we must
have a deputy, and we are bound to say that we intend to make provision for the payment of his salary.
That must be part of the constitution, otherwise there need be no salary, and the governor-general may
be a mere shadow.
END QUOTE

Hansard 13-4-1897 Constitution convention Debates


QUOTE
Mr. SYMON: All I am showing is that you are fighting a shadow. You are Seeking to sacrifice what we
think are our rights, and upon which we lay stress, and upon which, to use the words of Mr. McMillan, you
say there is only the difference between tweedledee and tweedledum.
END QUOTE

Hansard 10-9-1897 Constitution convention Debates


QUOTE
The Hon. I.A. ISAACS: The American Constitution is compounded of checks and balances!
Mr. WISE: I admit that.
Another and most important advantage arising from this ingredient is the great difference which it creates in
the elements of the two branches of the legislature which constitutes a great desideratum in every practical
division of the legislative power. In fact, this division, as has been already intimated, is of little or no intrinsic
value, unless it is so organised that each can operate as a real check upon undue and rash legislation. If each

p18 6-5-2019 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.


INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
branch is substantially framed upon the same plan, the same plan, the advantages of the division are shadowy
and imaginative; the visions and speculation of the brain and not the waking thoughts of statesmen or
patriots.
END QUOTE

Hansard 13-9-1897 Constitution convention Debates


QUOTE
The Hon. E. BARTON: The members of the senate are to hold their office for six years, and one-half of
the senators will go out every three years, if the bill stands as it is. Every member of the senate will hold
office for six years, although half of them may go out every three years. There is to be an election every three
years, but the members of the senate are to hold their office up to the time specified to the day. Now we know
well, as a matter of common occurrence, that, where there has been nothing to cause a dissolution of the
lower chamber, before the effluxion. of time, the case is extremely rare, nevertheless, in which the members
hold their seats until that time has actually arrived. In this colony the practice is to dissolve one, two, or
three months before the time expires.
END QUOTE

Technically where the Senate last no more than 3 years then the House of Representatives should
hold by latest an election to allow for the return of the writs by the conclusion of the 3 year
period and not beyond it. This so that when half of the Senate seats expires each 3 years the
election can be held for both. It would be grossly unfair for a candidate to pay thousands of
dollars as a deposit and if elected then discover that a DOUBLE DISSOLUTION is used before
the Senator-elect can take up the seat and so his monies were wasted.

* I am aware this is a mere limited set out you just presented but still very informative.
**#** Those who so to say are sitting opposite of the Members in the government unlikely will
be aware about the constitutional issues I relate to. For example we had this so called Coco pop
or whatever its name was for taxation and the senate refused it. The next day the senate then
passed it when the independent Senator had made a certain deal. This is offending what the
Framers of the Constitution stated and embedded as a legal principle in the constitution!

Hansard 9-3-1898 Constitution convention Debates


QUOTE
Mr. TRENWITH (Victoria).-With great respect, I submit to those who are objecting to this provision
that they are fighting a shadow. If they meant anything when they said there must be two sessions they
meant that the House of Representatives should have some interval to reconsider its position. It is no
use to say that the Senate can delay it. Delay is not what is required as the ultimate end of a dissolution,
but agreement, if possible. It would be just as well to say that a measure should be twice considered in
the same session, as that there should be two sessions without an interval. I think that one session
should be sufficient, but if there is to be a second consideration it ought not to be possible for
Parliament to be prorogued for a day, to meet again in a state of heat and temper, and to pass the Bill
without discussion. That is not the object of providing two sessions, and I would submit to my
honorable friends, who in the main agree with me, that this is not a point worth fighting about. It is
admitted generally that the Executive will allow some reasonable time, probably not less than three
months, but it is urged that there may be occasions when, if a Bill is not carried, the whole of the
finances of the Commonwealth will be thrown into confusion. That could only happen on the rejection
of an Appropriation Bill.
Mr. MCMILLAN.-Which would mean revolution?
END QUOTE

* As usual you are backing up as to what you state and that is what I consider to be very
important.
**#** I am concerned that candidates continue to be wrongly denied to be Members of
parliament for having some British entitlement when our constitution provides for us to be
Subject of the British Crown.

Hansard 3-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates


p19 6-5-2019 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
QUOTE
Sir JOHN FORREST.-What is a citizen? A British subject?
Mr. WISE.-I presume so.
Sir JOHN FORREST.-They could not take away the rights of British subjects.
Mr. WISE.-I do not think so. I beg to move- That the words "each state" be omitted, with the view of
inserting the words "the Commonwealth."
I apprehend the Commonwealth must have complete power to grant or refuse citizenship to any citizen
within its borders. I think my answer to Sir John Forrest was given a little too hastily when I said that every
citizen of the British Empire must be a citizen of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth will have power
to determine who is a citizen. I do not think Dr. Quick's amendment is necessary. If we do not put in a
definition of citizenship every state will have inherent power to decide who is a citizen. That was the
decision of the Privy Council in Ah Toy's case.
Sir JOHN FORREST.-He was an alien.
Mr. WISE.-The Privy Council decided that the Executive of any colony had an inherent right to
determine who should have the rights of citizenship within its borders.
Mr. KINGSTON.-That it had the right of keeping him out.
END QUOTE

What the Commonwealth can do is to deny an alien to become a citizen in refusing the person to
land, as was in the Ah Toy case. When special legislation is enacted against a race then all
persons of that race will be automatically denied franchise, this obviously is to prevent them to
overturn the legislation.
Again, there is a lot more to it all but to me any candidate who is a British subject is entitled to
be a Member of Parliament in the Commonwealth of Australia if elected for this.

Hansard 2-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates


QUOTE Mr. J. FORREST:
We propose to form a commonwealth of Australia, and are we to prohibit people of our own race, born
in other portions of the British dominions, from becoming senators until they have been resident in the
commonwealth for a certain period? No such prohibition is placed upon Australians residing in the old
country. Any Australian, resident in England, can at once, if the electors desire, become a member of
the House of Commons, and I see no reason why a distinguished Englishman coming to these colonies
should not at once be eligible for the position of senator if the legislature of one of the colonies desired
his appointment.
END QUOTE

It is clear that the Framers of the Constitution held that British subjects of other parts of the
world would be entitled to become a Member of the Federal Parliament. We are under the British
Crown and where Section 128 referendum cannot even alter this then surely the High Court of
Australia lacks any judicial powers to do so.

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution convention Debates


QUOTE

Mr. SYMON.-I would not put such a power in the hands of any Parliament. We must rest this
Constitution on a foundation that we understand, and we mean that every citizen of a state shall be a
citizen of the Commonwealth, and that the Commonwealth shall have no right to withdraw, qualify, or
restrict those rights of citizenship, except with regard to one particular set of people who are subject to
disabilities, as aliens, and so on. Subject to that limitation, we ought not, under this Constitution, to hand
over our birth right as citizens to anybody, Federal Parliament or any one else, and I hope the amendment
will not be accepted.

Dr. COCKBURN (South Australia).-I think the Commonwealth should keep in its own hands the key of its
own citizenship. Some colonies are somewhat colourblind with regard to immigration, other colonies may be
somewhat deficient in their ideas as to naturalization. If we place in the hands of any state the power of
forcing on the Commonwealth an obnoxious citizenship, we shall be doing very great evil to the
Commonwealth. This power should be in the hands of the Commonwealth; it should itself possess power to
define the conditions on which the citizenship of the Commonwealth shall be given; and the citizenship of
the Commonwealth should not necessarily follow upon the citizenship of any particular state.

p20 6-5-2019 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.


INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-We have provided in this Constitution for the exercise of the rights of
citizenship, so far as the choice of representatives is concerned, and we have given various safe-guards to
individual liberty in the Constitution. We have, therefore, given each resident in the Commonwealth his
political rights, so far as the powers of legislation and administration intrusted to the Commonwealth are
concerned. Let us consider the position. Before the establishment of the Commonwealth, each subject is the
subject of a state. After the Commonwealth is established, every one who acquires political rights-in fact,
every one who is a subject in a state, having certain political rights, has like political rights in the
Commonwealth. The only difference between the position before the institution of the Commonwealth and
afterwards is that, so far as there are additional political powers given to any subject or citizen, be has the
right to exercise these, and the method of exercising them is defined. So far the right of citizenship, if there
is a right of citizenship under the empire, is defined in the Constitution. Now, each citizen of a state is,
without definition, a citizen of the Commonwealth if there is such a term as citizenship to be applied to
a subject of the empire. I must admit, after looking at a standard authority-Stroud's Judicial Dictionary-that
I cannot find any definition of citizenship as applied to a British subject. No such term as citizen or
citizenship is to be found in the long roll of enactments, so far as I can recollect, that deal with the
position of subjects of the United Kingdom, and I do not think we have been in the habit of using that
term under our own enactments in any of our colonies.

Mr. HIGGINS.-You had it in the Draft Bill.

Mr. BARTON.-Yes; but the term has since disappeared, and it disappeared owing to objections from
members of the Convention. I am inclined to think that the Convention is right in not applying [start page
1765] the term "citizens" to subjects residing in the Commonwealth or in the states, but in leaving them to
their ordinary definition as subjects of the Crown. If, however, we make an amendment of this character,
inasmuch as citizens of the state must be citizens of the Commonwealth by the very terms of the
Constitution, we shall simply be enabling the Commonwealth to deal with the political rights of the
citizens of the states. The one thing follows from the other. If you once admit that a citizen or subject of
the state is a citizen or subject of the Commonwealth, the power conferred in these wide terms would
enable the Federal Parliament to deal with the political rights of subjects of the states. I do not think
the honorable member intends to go so far as that, but his amendment is open to that misconception.

END QUOTE

HANSARD 22-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE The Hon. E. BARTON (New South Wales)[10.32]:

I have read these reasons through very carefully, and I have been unable to discover that any of the
evils which my hon. and learned friend, Mr. Clark, fears may be expected from leaving these words as
they are. The powers are powers of legislation for the peace, order, and good government of the
commonwealth in respect of the matters specified. No construction in the world could confer any
powers beyond the ambit of those specified.

The Hon. N.E. LEWIS (Tasmania)[10.35]: I should like to submit for the consideration of the leader of the
Convention the question whether the words which the legislature of Tasmania have proposed to omit might
not raise the question whether legislation of the federal parliament was in every instance for the peace,
order, and good government of the commonwealth. Take, for instance, navigation laws. Might it not be
contended that certain navigation laws were not for the peace, order, and good government of the
commonwealth, and might there not be litigation upon the point? We are giving very full powers to the
parliament of the commonwealth, and might we not very well leave it to them to decide whether their
legislation was for the peace, order, and good government of the commonwealth? Surely that is
sufficient, without our saying definitely that their legislation should be for the peace, order, and good
government of the commonwealth. I hope the leader of the Convention will give the matter full
consideration with a view to seeing whether these words are not surplusage, and whether, therefore, they had
better not be left out of the bill altogether.

The Hon. E. BARTON: The suggestion of the hon. member will be considered by the Drafting
Committee.

Amendment negatived.
END QUOTE
p21 6-5-2019 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
.
Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-I think the honorable member (Mr. Wise) has expanded the spirit of
federation far beyond anything any of us has hitherto contemplated. He has enlarged, with great emphasis, on
the necessity of establishing and securing one citizenship. Now, the whole purpose of this Constitution is
to secure a dual citizenship. That is the very essence of a federal system. We have debated that matter again
and again. We are not here for unification, but for federation, and the dual citizenship must be recognised
as lying at the very basis of this Constitution.
END QUOTE

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates


QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-Yes; and here we have a totally different position, because the actual right which a
person has as a British subject-the right of personal liberty and protection under the laws-is secured by
being a citizen of the States. It must be recollected that the ordinary rights of liberty and protection by the
laws are not among the subjects confided to the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE

The High Court of Australia simply possesses no judicial powers to override by backdoor
manner or otherwise the constitution.

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates


QUOTE
Mr. SYMON.-The honorable and learned member is now dealing with another matter. Would not the
provision which is now before us confer upon the Federal Parliament the power to take away a portion of this
dual citizenship, with which the honorable and learned member (Dr. Quick) has so eloquently dealt? If that is
the case, what this Convention is asked to do is to hand over to the Federal Parliament the power, whether
exercised or not, of taking away from us that citizenship in the Commonwealth which we acquire by joining
the Union. I am not going to put that in the power of any one, and if it is put in the power of the Federal
Parliament, then I should feel that it was a very serious blot on the Constitution, and a very strong reason why
it should not be accepted. It is not a lawyers' question; it is a question of whether any one of British blood
who is entitled to become a citizen of the Commonwealth is to run the risk-it may be a small risk-of
having that taken away or diminished by the Federal Parliament! When we declare-"Trust the
Parliament," I am willing to do it in everything which concerns the working out of this Constitution, but I
am not prepared to trust the Federal Parliament or anybody to take away that which is a leading inducement
for joining the Union.
END QUOTE

It must be clear that the terminology used by the Framers of the Constitution are; “British
subject”, “to make persons subjects of the British Empire.”, “with the consent of the
Imperial authority”, “What is meant is a dual citizenship in Mr. Trenwith and myself. That
is to say, I am a citizen of the state and I am also a citizen of the Commonwealth; that is the
dual citizenship.”, “we are all alike subjects of the British Crown.” We have a High Court of
Australia that appears to me being political motivated to try to alter the Constitution by stealth
by endorsing a substitute Constitution! The question is if the judges of the High Court of
Australia committed TREASON
*.I think you are on the right track.
**#** Consider that our constitution deals with citizenship being the place of abode not your
alliance to a particular country. The fact that the British Parliament and other countries have
decided to use the term citizenship referring to a nationality doesn’t alter what it stands for in our
constitution. It would also b be totally absurd that we could have a person as a Member of
parliament and then some country decides to legislate that if you have a forefather who was
previously, even hundreds of years ago, a national then all descendants in eternity will be
deemed to be a national regardless that they never resided in that country. By this effectively
denying any person to be secure being a Member of Parliament.
p22 6-5-2019 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
.
Hansard 15-4-1891 Constitution convention Debates
QUOTE

Clause 44.-Any person:

I. Who has taken an oath or made a declaration or acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence,
to a foreign power, or has done any act whereby he has become a subject or a citizen, or entitled to the rights
or privileges of a subject or a citizen, of a foreign power; or

II. Who is an undischarged bankrupt or insolvent, or a public defaulter; or

III. Who is attainted of treason, or convicted of felony or of any infamous crime:

shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a member of the Senate or of the House of
Representatives until the disability is removed by a grant of a discharge, or the expiration or remission of the
sentence, or a pardon, or release, or otherwise.

Mr. GORDON: I should like to ask Mr. Barton whether there is anything in this point: A number of
German fellow colonists may have taken the oath of allegiance to a foreign power, especially those who
have served in the ranks in Germany. Would it not be necessary to add after "power" in line 27 the
words "or who has not since been naturalised as provided in clause 30"?

Mr. GLYNN: You cannot have two, allegiances.

Mr. BARTON: No; a man might have to go out of our Parliament to serve against us.

Sir GEORGE TURNER: He may be Minister of Defence.

Mr. CARRUTHERS: I would like to put a case to Mr. Barton. It may happen that treaties may be in
force between say England and Japan. There is a treaty almost in operation on the very lines I am
citing that will give to a British subject travelling in Japan practically the same rights and privileges as
he would enjoy as a citizen of his own country. Surely it is never intended that by a person travelling in
another country, who becomes entitled to privileges conferred on him by a treaty between two high
powers, he should be disqualified from holding a seat in the Federal Parliament. Our members of
Parliament who are hardworked take their summer trips, and it may be that some of them may come
back and find they have lost their seats as a result of this clause.

Clause as read agreed to.

END QUOTE

Hansard 21-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates


QUOTE

[start page 1012]

Mr. GLYNN (South Australia)[8.33]: Before the Committee proceeds to consider the amendment which
has been suggested by the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales, I would suggest that we make an
alteration in the first portion of the clause by adding words to the effect that these disqualifications shall
operate until the federal parliament otherwise provides.

The Hon. E. BARTON: Does the hon. member contemplate the federal parliament making provision
exempting a man who has taken the oath of allegiance to a foreign power?

Mr. GLYNN: This provision is really temporary. It is to cover the gap between the adoption of the
constitution and the passing of special legislation by the federal parliament. I would ask hon. members also
to consider the effect of sub-clauses II and III. For instance, the meaning of the term "bankrupt" itself may
change. It may be very different twenty years hence from what it now is. Then there is the word "felony."
p23 6-5-2019 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
As Sir Samuel Griffith has pointed out, the meaning of the word "felony" is changing considerably. In some
colonies felony is comparatively a light offence; in other colonies it is a heavy offence. In New Zealand
felony is practically unknown to the federal law. Changes similar to that which have taken place in New
Zealand in regard to the meaning of the word may take place in other colonies, and if you leave the clause
as it stands you will put it in the power of the states parliaments to either extend or diminish the
qualification by making a change in the meaning of "felony." I say that this is a matter for the federal
parliament, and that it ought not to be fixed perpetually in the constitution. Again, as regards the
construction of the clause itself, I would draw the attention of the Drafting Committee to another matter.
The hon. member, Mr. Barton, has referred to the taking of an oath or declaration of allegiance. The first
part of the clause, it will be seen, does not read with the latter part of it. For instance, it says, "Any person
who has taken an oath or made a declaration or acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a
foreign power." The clause then goes on to say that the person shall be incapable of being chosen or sitting
as a member of the senate or of the house of representatives until the disability is removed. But, once a
man takes an oath of this kind, you cannot remove the disability because a thing is done. The
amendment required is purely a drafting amendment. The way in which the matter should be put would be,
until the removal of the disqualification caused by the taking of the oath. That is the evident intent of the
clause; but the wording of the clause is altogether different. I think this is a matter that ought to be left to
the federal parliament, and I think that the words I suggest should be adopted.

The HON. E. BARTON (New South Wales)[8.36]: I am unable to see that it would be a good thing to
limit this clause in the way suggested by my hon. friend, Mr. Glynn, who has said that this is a matter that
should be left to the federal parliament. This happens to be just one of those matters which are included in
the constitution of every one of the colonies. All the colonial constitutions provide for such matters as
these, and it is perhaps right that they should provide for them, for even in the first parliament it would be
rather a strange thing to find persons who had taken oaths of allegiance to foreign powers, who were
undischarged bankrupts or insolvents, or who had been recently attainted of crime, or convicted of felony
or infamous crime. Unless you have provisions of this kind, it is quite possible that somebody might take a
violent affection for a gaol-bird, and put him into parliament. We do not want that sort of thing. It is one
thing not to put limita- [start page 1013] tions on the ordinary freedom of the citizens of the
commonwealth. It is another thing to provide against the defilement of parliament; and this would be the
case as regards the 3rd sub-clause, whilst in the case of the 2nd sub-clause it would be the admission into
parliament of persons who had not purged themselves of certain disabilities, while in the case of the first
subclause it would be the entry of persons into parliament whose very conditions would suggest that their
interests were quite different from those of the citizens of the country. Persons who have taken the oath
of allegiance to a foreign power are not to be classed in the same category as citizens of the country
for the purpose of joining in legislation.

An HON. MEMBER: And not to be trusted?

The Hon. E. BARTON: Not to be trusted, prima facie!

Mr. GLYNN: That is not one of my points!

The Hon. E. BARTON: If the definition of a point is a thing of no magnitude, it is not a point because it is
larger. These limitations having been put in all constitutions of the Australian colonies, and having worked
well, and prevented the entry of undesirable persons into parliament, they may well be continued in the
constitution we are now framing. They are not limitations of the freedom of the electors. It is scarcely to
be supposed that, except by inadvertence or accident, the electors would vote for such a person; but it is
quite possible that the electors of the commonwealth, not knowing that certain persons had taken the oath
of allegiance to a foreign power or had become attainted of some crime, or become bankrupt or insolvent-it
is quite on the cards that such persons would stand for election for the commonwealth parliament, and the
electors might choose them, not knowing who they were. That is not at all an improbable supposition. Such
a thing has happened, and it is a kind of thing which the electors are to be protected against, because it is a
state of things the electors themselves could not provide against. They might be taken in warily; they might
be caught in a trap. This is not merely a case of preserving the freedom of the electors, but of preventing
them from being imposed upon by persons who otherwise might creep into parliament, perhaps, in some
cases, persons who were insidious enemies of the commonwealth, and in other cases persons who had been
attainted of crime, or who were under other conditions of which they should rid themselves before they
offered themselves for election to any legislative assembly. I submit that on the whole it is very desirable to
avoid making the alteration suggested by the hon. member, Mr. Glynn; and while I am speaking, I think I

p24 6-5-2019 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.


INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
might say that, although it is far less objectionable, it would be desirable also not to accept the amendment
that has been suggested by the Legislative Assembly of this colony.

END QUOTE
.
It is therefore very clear that if a person makes an oath of alliance to another country then that
person cannot be trusted. However one cannot claim that because some forlorn country may
legislate to grand someone a nationality without the person’s knowledge and/or acceptance than
this person somehow can be denied his constitutional rights where this person may never even
have any knowledge of the past of any forefathers doing. And when we now have that even IVF
children can be denied, albeit I view wrongly, to be a member of parliament merely because
some biological grandparent might have provided for some rights to me is absurd.
The real solution is that if a person naturalize to become a British Subject, as you cannot become
an Australian national without it (considering that the Commonwealth of Australia is nothing
more but a political union -see above stated) that any person who naturalize is required to give up
any other nationality. I understand that the Dutch have this requirement, albeit you can
afterwards re-apply for your former nationality to the country you originated from.
As for those who allegedly have dual nationality by birth, they can renounce this is they are
elected and before they take up a seat in the federal Parliament as to avoid any possible conflict.
For example they can make a declaration: I will renounce all and any nationality and other
entitlements of any foreign country I am entitled to by birth or otherwise.
The person then can after that accept the seat elected for.
I view that it is absurd fort anyone to renounce any dual nationality merely to be a candidate
which may never lead to being elected. I accept however that as the Framers of the Constitution
made clear that once a person makes an oath to a foreign country then this person could never be
accepted as being a Member of federal Parliament. This as to make an oath essentially is a
commitment whereas a right by birth is not a deliberate commitment.
When a person makes a conscious and deliberate act to become a national of another country
then I view the person can never be trusted. However, if a person obtains certain rights by birth it
is an unconscious act.
One also should understand that ample of Australians (within the provision of being a British
subject) may engage in business ventures with foreign countries, being it holding share holdings,
etc. In fact former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull in my view was ineligible to be a Member
of (federal) Parliament where he held off shore accounts as technically it violated Section 44 of
the constitution. This as by holding off shore accounts in so to say tax heave ns he was subject to
another countries provisions. The same applies to anyone one else holding interest in foreign
countries, being it business or residing there. For example Julian Assange was in my view
ineligible to be a Senate candidate in a previous federal election as he was a citizen (residing) in
the Ecuadorian embassy and as such could not be regarded a citizen in a State/Territory (within
the Commonwealth of Australia to have electoral entitlements..
*. It seems to me that Bill Shorten when he was a Minister actually was in violation of the
provisions of s44 of the constitution as by the registration with the District of Columbia he and
other Ministers were/are subject to a “foreign power”, the USA
**#** In my view the High Court of Australia is politically charged and for this denied my
applications to be heard and determined.

The following will also make clear that the Framers of the Constitution intended to have CIVIL
RIGHTS and LIBERTIES principles embedded in the Constitution;

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates


QUOTE Mr. CLARK.-

p25 6-5-2019 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.


INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
for the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual citizen is entitled to
claim that the federal government shall take under its protection and secure to him.
END QUOTE

Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates


QUOTE Mr. OCONNER (New South Wales).-
Because, as has been said before, it is [start page 357] necessary not only that the administration of
justice should be pure and above suspicion, but that it should be beyond the possibility of suspicion;
END QUOTE

HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates


QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its Constitution,
END QUOTE
.
HANSARD 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-Our civil rights are not in the hands of any Government, but the rights of the Crown
in prosecuting criminals are.
END QUOTE

Much is claimed that the British Parliament altered the meaning/application of “British subject”
to exclude Australians, however this is meaningless because an ordinary legislation cannot
override a constitution.

Neither can the purported Australia Act 1986 (UK) & (Cth) have any influence upon what the
constitution stands for this as no Parliament can deny a subsequent Parliament its legislative
powers. Hence the British parliament at the time had no such legislative powers to have the
purported Australia Act 1986 (UK) enacted. Neither did the Commonwealth of Australia possess
such powers to deny the grantor (British Parliament) it legislative powers.

It is very obvious to me that the High Court of Australia was possessed with wanting to be the
most senior court and oust the Privy Council but to me that is unconstitutional. In fact the High
Court of Australia being recorded with a business number I view also violated the constitution. It
instead of being an independent judiciary it now is so to say a mere puppet on a string for the
politicians.

* And you definitely will not vote in the coming federal election?
**#** I exercise my constitutional rights and they were upheld in both appeals on 19 July 2006
and there is absolutely nothing they can do against me.
* But Olga (your wife) does vote?
**#** Only because she doesn’t want the problems of court cases at her advance age. So she is
terrorized in voting.
I deplore such terrorism upon electors! Again there is a lot more to it all but the above stated may
give some indication there is a lot wrong.
We need to return to the organics and legal principles embed in of our federal constitution!

This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® (Our name is our motto!)

p26 6-5-2019 © G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.


INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

You might also like